GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-08 > 1281442445
From: Didier VERNADE <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] SRY10831 at the root ?
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:14:05 -0600
Thank you Sassaon for remembering this work from Tim janzen. I agree with you that a repeat on the 55 groups might help but I also think we are missing data. By "near the root" (not the best way to say I agree) I precisely meant those rare A* , B* and Y-M168* (Y means "whatever you call these ones). At present there may be a bias because many more C-F haplotypes have been analyzed as compared to A and B haplogroups. A and B were gathered mainly from a few studies. The article on A haplogroup on Wikipedia :
is mentioning A haplogroup in Sardinia, Lesbos island and some other Mediterranean sites. I am wondering if Tim had the possibility to put a hand on some of these non african A samples (same for B haplogroup if there are).
> Didier had written:
> > The small change is producing a completely new tree
> > because the root gives rise to 3 major lines
> > about equally distant from each other.
Sasson answered :
> The three lines are SUPPOSED to be about equally distant from each.
> This is the 'empirical' prediction that your hypothesis makes.
> Is it confirmed by 'experiment' ? No.
> Did you see the results Tim Janzen posted a year ago?
> Here I repeat only results of comparing A with all other Haplogroups using
> 50 markers:
> A/B node: 35089
> A/C node: 63495
> A/E node: 57130
> A/F node: 49312
> A/G node: 57469
> A/H node: 62347
> A/I node: 54443
> A/J node: 81744
> A/L node: 58009
> A/N node: 82927
> A/O node: 81833
> A/Q node: 61898
> A/R node: 63410
> A/T node: 71635
> You see that A is much closer to B than it is to the rest, contrary to what
> is predicted by your hypothesis
> But lets compare compare the average distance of A to groups C,E,F,G,H
> ( which is 58K )
> to the average distance of A to groups
> I,J,L,N,O,Q,R,T ( which is 69K )
> Not only both numbers are much grater than the distance A to B,
> but, in agreement with "IJK first" hypothesis,
> the distance of A to groups within IJK is systematically greater
> than the distance from A to the groups outside IJK.
> This is exactly what is predicted by the model in which it is IJK
> that branched out first.
> Notice that the absolute numbers should not be interpreted as "years",
> but as some abstract measure of relative genetic distance.
> > I agree that we need more haplotypes from cases near the root ;
> > it should be a goal for the future.
> Whereever the root is, we cannot have "haplotypes from cases near the root",
> because all the present time haplotypes are, by definition, equidistant from
> the root.
> But we can find the Root - by looking for an Edge in the Graph where
> splitting the Graph into two Trees leads to the most compact couple of
> The combination of the Graph established by SNPs with quantitative
> information coming from STR ( I mean by running Ken's Generation5 program
> for various collections of 67-marker samples using largest number of
> Ideally we should not use "one letter haplogroups, like I and J", but
> "letter-digit haplogroups, like "I1, I2, J1, J2, J* etc ). At this level of
> resolution we may get to some statistically significant results.
> The preliminary results we have today hint towards a possibility of arriving
> to interesting surprises.
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:24 AM, wrote:
> > Sasson,
> > The small change is producing a completely new tree because the root gives
> > rise to 3 major lines about equally distant from each other. This is somehow
> > equivalent to the tree between Eucaryotes, Procaryotes and the
> > Archebacteria.
> > I agree that we need more haplotypes from cases near the root ; it should
> > be a goal for the future.
> > About group B , I wasn't aware of cases in Pakistan.
> > Didier